Recent Press Releases

‘Those of us who oppose unlimited bailouts for struggling automakers don’t want these companies to fail. We want them to succeed’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding the administration’s auto bailout plan:

“The significance of the U.S. auto industry as a symbol of American creativity, industriousness, and prosperity is hard to overstate. So is the importance of its continued survival to the millions of American workers who design, build, and sell our cars here and around the world. And this is precisely why many of us have been insisting for years that management and labor take the tough but necessary steps to keep these companies viable not only in a recession, but also in good times.

“Unfortunately, many of those tough decisions have been put off time and again, and the day of reckoning has come for two of the big three automakers. Yesterday, the administration announced that GM and Chrysler had failed to come up with viable plans for survival, despite tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts aimed at avoiding this very thing.

“The immediate result of this failure on the part of the automakers was the administration’s decision to fire GM’s CEO — and the promise of even more bailout money if these companies take the same kinds of steps that Republicans have been demanding for years.

“Last fall, when the recession took hold, Republicans said that emergency support was justifiable for entities whose failure threatened to paralyze the nation’s entire economy. Taxpayer support for individual industries was not. Our reasoning was that the taxpayers would understand an effort to save the entire credit system, the lifeblood of the Main Street economy, but they wouldn’t support the government picking winners and losers based on political or regional calculations.

“And while no one takes pleasure in the continued struggles of the automakers, those warnings and that principle appear to have been vindicated by recent events. If our proposal had prevailed last fall, these two companies would have been forced to make the serious structural changes that billions of dollars in taxpayer money since that time have not produced. Republicans said the expectation of bailouts disincentivised reform, and it appears that we were right.

“In early December, I said that a tentative compromise between labor and management didn’t go nearly far enough, that what was needed was a firm commitment on the part of these companies to reform either in or out of bankruptcy, get their benefit costs under control, make wages competitive with foreign automakers immediately, and end the practice of paying workers who don’t work. I also said automakers had to rationalize dealer networks in response to the market.

“The previous administration took a different view. It said that an emergency infusion of taxpayer money would be enough to force these companies and labor leaders to act. The current administration agreed with that assessment and last month, when the automakers came back again for more money, the current administration complied with an additional $5 billion infusion of taxpayer dollars. That latest infusion appears to have had little or no effect.

“Yesterday, we got the verdict: four months and $25 billion taxpayer dollars after Republicans called for tough but needed reform, the automakers are no farther along than they were in December. As a result, the current Administration has decided that the bailouts can’t go on forever — though they’re still putting the cut-off date into the future. The taxpayer regret for this bailout is that it could have cost a lot less than $25 billion dollars. The answer to this problem was obvious months ago.

“Throughout this debate, some have tried to propagate the falsehood that this is a regional issue, that certain senators oppose bailouts because domestic auto makers don’t operate in their states. If that were true, I wouldn’t be standing here. Thousands of Kentuckians work at Ford assembly plants in Louisville, thousands more work for domestic suppliers throughout Kentucky, and for more than 30 years, every Corvette in America has rolled off a production line in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

“Those of us who oppose unlimited bailouts for struggling automakers don’t want these companies to fail. We want them to succeed. And if our proposals had been adopted, we believe they’d be in a much better position to do so. Hardworking autoworkers at places like Ford and GM in Kentucky have suffered because of the past decisions of unions and management. It’s not their fault that labor and management made the decisions that put them in this mess. And it’s no coincidence that Ford, the only U.S. auto company that has refused taxpayer bailout money to date, is also the most viable — even after the financing arm of one of its bailed-out competitors used taxpayer funds to provide its customers with better financing deals. Companies that make the tough choices and steer their own ship are better off for it in the short and long term.

“Everyone wants the domestic automakers to get through the current troubles and to thrive. But it’s going to take more than tough talk after the fact or the firing of CEOs. It’s encouraging to see the Administration is coming around to our view. It’s a shame the taxpayers had to put up $25 billion to get to this point.”

###

Ideas Americans Support

March 31, 2009

‘Americans deserve better. They expect a full and open debate, particularly on a piece of legislation as far-reaching as this’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding the Thune and Johanns amendments to the budget that the Senate will consider Tuesday afternoon:

“I’d like to speak briefly on two of the amendments we’ll consider today. One protects Americans from a new national energy tax in the form of an increase in electricity and gasoline prices at a time when they can least afford it, and one brings transparency to the budget process.

“The first amendment we’ll consider, sponsored by the Junior Senator from South Dakota, says that the reserve fund in the budget resolution for climate change cannot be used for legislation that would increase electricity or gasoline prices for American consumers.

“An increase in electricity and gas prices would disproportionately affect people at the lower ends of the economic ladder. And American families cannot afford a tax increase at a time when many are already struggling to make ends meet. Passing this amendment would protect them from the additional burden of the new national energy tax included in the Administration’s budget.

“The second amendment, sponsored by the Junior Senator from Nebraska, bars the use of Reconciliation when considering climate change legislation, thus assuring an open, bipartisan debate on this job killing and far-reaching proposal.

“Democrat budget writers who support Reconciliation know their plans for a new national energy tax are unpopular with both Republicans and Democrats. That’s why they’re trying to fast-track this legislation down the road and prevent its critics from having their say.

“The strategy of the Reconciliation advocates is clear: lay the groundwork for a new national energy tax that could cost American households up to $3,100 per year, keep it quiet, then rush it through Congress leaving transparency and debate in its wake.

“Americans deserve better. They expect a full and open debate, particularly on a piece of legislation as far-reaching as this. And the proposal by the junior Senator from Nebraska would ensure it.

“Here are two Republican ideas Americans support. I urge my colleagues to do the same by voting in favor of the Johanns and Thune Amendments.”

###

‘If Democrat leaders intend to pay for all the Administration’s programs with a new energy tax, they should say so now, bring it to the full Senate, and let the people decide’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Monday regarding the budget:

“Americans have serious concerns about this budget and the massive amount of spending, taxing, and borrowing that it calls for in the middle of a recession. And they are also increasingly concerned that Democrat leaders in Washington seem to be less and less straightforward about what they’re doing these days on Capitol Hill.

“Americans were upset to learn that a provision was quietly dropped from the Stimulus bill that would have kept taxpayer dollars from going to executives at failed financial firms. But they were equally upset at how those bonuses came about — the language blocking them was quietly stripped from the bill in a closed conference room somewhere in the Capitol, without anybody looking.

“A few days after that, openness took another holiday on Capitol Hill when Democrat leaders announced new budget gimmicks that had the effect of concealing the true long-term cost of the Administration’s $3.6 trillion budget.

“And now the questions about diminishing transparency relate to the budget itself — a budget that almost makes the trillion dollar Stimulus bill look fiscally responsible by comparison.

“Everyone knows that the national debt is already too high, and that this budget would cause that debt to balloon even more, doubling it in five years and tripling it in 10.

“Yet even with all that borrowing, the administration still won’t have enough money to pay for the massive expansion of government outlined in its budget. In order to cover the cost, they propose two things: a tax on income that hits small businesses hard, and a new national energy tax that would hit every American household and business.

“But the Democrat budget writers had a problem: This new energy tax is deeply unpopular, and it’s a serious job killer.

“According to some estimates, this tax could cost every American household up to $3,100 a year just for doing the same things people have always done, like turning on the lights and doing laundry. It’s also a tax on all economic activity, from factory floors to front offices. This tax won’t just hit American households. It will cost us jobs.

“Another problem was that virtually all Republicans and a lot of Democrats agree with most Americans that this new national energy tax is a terrible idea, that we can’t afford it. And yet without this tax, there’s just no other way for Democrat leaders to pay for all of the new government programs that the administration wants.

“The solution to the problem was this: Democrat budget writers decided to use a rule that allows them to fast-track legislation down the road, including potentially the new energy tax, without any input from Democrats and Republicans who either have serious concerns about this tax or who oppose it altogether.

“The Chairman of the budget Committee argues that his version of the budget Resolution doesn’t allow this avenue for fast-tracking legislation on an energy tax, and that may be so. But we also know two things: first, that the language House budget writers have used in their budget Resolution leaves the door wide open to include the energy tax, and that Democrats need this tax as a slush fund to pay for all the new programs this budget creates.

“Some still argue that this fast-track process won’t be used for the energy tax. They must not be paying attention to the Administration’s budget Director, who says fast-tracking the energy tax isn’t off the table. And they must not have been paying attention to the Majority Leader, who, to his credit, has been quite candid about the fact that the amount of money the administration needs for its healthcare proposals is almost exactly what the administration says it can raise from a national energy tax.

“Americans don’t need another $3,100 added onto their tax bill. But just as worrisome is the method that’s being used to ram this tax through Congress: lay the groundwork, keep it quiet, then rush it through with as little transparency and as little debate as possible. If there’s anything we have learned over the last few weeks, it’s that the American people want more people watching the store, not less.

“If the bonuses taught us anything at all, it’s that Americans think we should take more time, not less, when considering how to spend their money. If Democrat leaders intend to pay for all the Administration’s programs with a new energy tax, they should say so now, bring it to the full Senate, and let the people decide. Anything less on a policy shift of this magnitude betrays a troubling lack of straightforwardness about Democrats’ plans for imposing a massive new tax on the American people and American businesses.”

###